Why Is New England A Gay Marriage Hub? Theories, Anyone?

Maine has legalized gay marriage, making it the fifth state to do so, and, more specifically, the fourth state in New England to do so. Aside from Maine, we can also get hitched in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont.

Get New Hampshire and Rhode Island onboard, and all of New England will allow gay marriage.

As a native of Massachusetts, I am so proud and frankly surprised that New England is now essentially the hub of gay marriage in the United States. Growing up, I never imagined it would be that way. I was raised in a small town where being gay equaled being a pariah, which strikes me as especially odd given that I grew up fairly close to Northampton aka Lesbian Central as well as the gay mecca Provincetown.

But I didn't know anyone who was openly gay in my small town. I did know of a closeted lesbian couple that lived down the street from my family. As much as they tried to act like they were just friends, they weren't fooling anybody, and while no one ever picked on them, people had nothing but mean things to say about them behind their backs. And there was this one guy in high school who was labeled gay and mercilessly taunted for it.

I was too afraid to come out back then.

Eventually, I left my small town and moved to conservative Boston for college and still remember how the city's knuckleheads, which included everyone from Boston College frat boys to working class kids from East Boston, liked to pick on the "queers."

To be honest, I couldn't wait to get the hell out of Boston, Massachusetts and New England as a whole when I finished college in part so that I could live in a more gay-friendly place.

That was a few years back, although it seems like forever now.

Clearly, attitudes about gay people have changed in New England. I mean, they must have, right? Or was the region always more accepting in general despite my personal experiences? I'd love to know what gay people from Massachusetts and other New England states think.

And does anyone out there have any theories on why New England is leading the way when it comes to extending the benefits of marriage to gay people?

(Image courtesy of Getty)

Comments

[Rickford]

Wasn't there something about a Tea Party in Boston way back when? Maybe it had a different motivation than the history books tell us. After all, from the various paintings I've seen, it appears that the men of the time were really into pony tails and ruffled sleeves. Must have taken all of this time for things to really become overt. Just a thought.

[Pål]

This has to do with religion first of all. There are less born-again whacko fundamentalists in the northeast than in the south and in the midwest. The only surprise to me is the ususally liberal state of California.
Also the GOP has almost been eradicated in New England. Plus you are closer than the rest to the normal world i.e. Canada and western Europe....... Good luck to you from Pål in Oslo, Norway where we have one marriage law for all - straight and gay.

[Rev. Criss Ittermann]

The northern and especially coastal states have a reputation for being on the forefront of socio-political revolution in the US. It is probably a combination of reasons. We're more affluent as a rule, more educated as a rule, have much more of a melting-pot because we're ports of entry for external influences, especially NY & CA. To survive in the coastal states, you simply must grow up more tolerant of differences. And eventually, you come to realize that we all have connections, we all have the spark of life or a soul in common. That we all feel pain, love, sweat for our equity, cry, get angry, eat...although we're each unique, we share the common pool of experience that is the core of being human.

These states also, in general, have a higher population per square mile than the more conservative states -- add that to the melting pot portion of my theory and the commandment to "Love thy neighbor" means one must love -- and hence hopefully tolerate or even, one hopes, blatantly embrace -- regardless of race, color, creed, or whom one sleeps with.

One of my favorite "Crissisms" is "Love them all! Let God sort them out!" It is not our job to sort humanity into saint vs. sinner. That's God's job. It's our job to love, accept, cherish, promote, protect, and live & let live.

Another basic difference is how the states uphold the US Constitution. Conservatives rail against the separation of Church and State. They find the concept of gay marriage to be unconscionable but have overlooked that the source of their objection is religious and has no place in law in this country for some very good reasons set forth by the founders. In their minds, they have not separated Church and State, and cannot mentally grasp the separation. In a moment they would create laws based on their religious beliefs. That's not the same in the more educated states -- we live our daily lives as a rule with much more separation of Church and State as a matter of rule. At least in my mind, the merging of Church and State is unconscionable. I would not be able to mentally grasp a body of law that is inseparable from religious credo.

As a member of the ordained clergy in New York State, I spoke out to my representatives to support Governor Patterson's bill to the New York State legislators asking for marriage equity in NY. I consider it to be a blessing to officiate marriage wherever there is love.

[Steven]

I think it has a lot to do with how progressive the area is in general. If you think back, this was the starting point of many cultural revolutions in the history of the United States. Social change always seems to travel from East to West, with the west coast holding tight to their ideals until they are the last place that has them. The fact that marriage equality has taken deep roots in the North East doesn't really surprise me, to be honest, hearing about marriage equality in Ohio was a shocker. I guess it has a lot to do with being closer to the sane world, also known as Western Europe and Canada.

[michaelj72]

i was born in upstate new york, we vacationed in maine quite a bit and i eventually went to the univeristy at UMO, so this is all a very pleasant surprise to me.
back in those dayz they were just starting up the stein club for gays and lesbians but i was too much in the closet to go to the meetings....but it got me wondering.

i think Pål has hit on something, about the lack of fundamentalism (and perhaps even die-hard catholicism) in new england, true also for iowa (p.s. steven it was iowa and not ohio). and the gop has been pretty devastated in new england, except for the two senators from maine who should get with it and change parties. Rev is right about the urbanity of the people in that part of the country too, another factor - which would also tend to predict that all the western pacific states will soon follow suit.

rhode island....next!

[Starrianna]

I live in California and worked HARD for the No on 8 campaign. We came very very close to winning. It was very interesting holding signs because usually men who were alone (often goodlooking) would tell us good luck or smile as they passed. Not so much if they were with friends or work associates.

If California HAD won, and we came very close, half the country would be ratifying marriage by now. It's time. This isn't a Neanderthal Puritan whitey-only country anymore where people kill off Indians and torture black people and tell women to stay home.

If anyone is anti gay anything, tell them to freaking grow up! Being anti-gay isn't just unfashionable anymore, it's totally immature.

And if someone says it's because of religion, tell them to try to think on their own. Maybe the light will go on.

[Robert]

There shouldn't even be "gay marriage," just marriage. Any particular religious connections or restrictions were surrendered to the State once that word was put in the law/Code. That arguement is totally spurious and irrelevent. There is not a state imposed required result of a marriage, is there?
I am an American. I was born that way. I am of the age of majority, completed puberty, and what gender or anything else about a person I am attracted to is none of the government's damn business.

Hold the line on keeping the word "marriage" unless a new term is used for everyone. Different terms as used socially will mean seperate but not really equal. Same gender couples just call themselves married anyway and I have no problem with that.

[php_guru]

Plain and simple: we in the northeast want the money, so we make laws that facilitate getting that money. After all, gay households (ie, 2 guys) are most likely going to have more expendable funds than our straight counterparts. This isn't about equality -- don't be fooled -- it's about massaging the dollars out of an untapped market. It's genius, really.